Current Projects
President Ghani: Terrorism is the defining challenge of our time which requires generational commitment to overcome
President Ghani’s Speech (Transcript) at 53rd Munich Security Conference Dateline: February 18, 2017. Munich, Germany Distinguished colleagues, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Terrorism is a defining challenge of our time. This challenge is going to require a generational commitment to overcome. It is not a phenomenon that is going to be contained in two years, more likely two decades. The wise men and women of 1945 feeling present at creation made half the world safe for democracy, rule of law and prosperity. Being present at a moment defining the 21st century, the task requires focus at the global, continental, Islamic, regional and national levels. We are at a moment when the world order is being re-defined and it is up to us as to whether we are going to make it productive, disruptive or destructive. We have a view from the edge because we are on the edge and we sense and respond to emerging patterns that might be difficult to see elsewhere. Fighting 20 groups classified as terrorist by US and UN, we are the frontline state in the first line of defense against terrorism. This is not a fight that we are doing just for our own liberty; we are engaged in a fight for security of the world. What are we learning? I would like to highlight some of the characteristics of the terrorism that we are facing. In earlier conferences, I put forward the notion that this is the fifth wave of political violence integrating and expanding the techniques of the previous waves in the past 160 years. The history of violence is a continuous history. There is no civilization, no religion, no part of the world that once in the last 160 years has not been a major center or engaged in terrorism. In no way, shape or form is terrorism related to one civilization or to one religion. The past geology of it needs to be understood because it is a series of continuous techniques. It has combined social network and virtual networks into a deadly force. The social networks are continuity of...
European Union and Afghanistan sign Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development
The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign and Security Policy and Vice–President of the European Commission, Federica Mogherini, and the Minister of Finance of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Eklil Hakimi, today signed a Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development (CAPD), in the presence of the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani. "The European Union has always stood by the Afghan people and will continue to do so. After the very successful international conference we have jointly chaired in Brussels last year, now our cooperation grows even more. The Cooperation Agreement we have signed today will allow us to build on the areas that we already engage with the Afghan authorities on, such as human development, anti-corruption, state building, and the rule of law, as well as cooperation on migration. This agreement is a partnership agreement by name and by nature. The European Union will keep working with our Afghan partners for the stability and the sustainable development of the country, for the sake of all Afghans," said the High Representative/Vice-President, Federica Mogherini. Minister Hakimi underlined that: "The Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development (CAPD) is a vital new framework for partnership between Afghanistan and the European Union. This agreement builds on our mutual commitments for stability and development made in Bonn in 2011, in Tokyo in 2012, in London in 2014 and renewed at the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan last year. It also formalises our partnership and provides an opportunity to strengthen friendship and cooperation between Afghanistan and the EU by conducting regular political dialogue on various fronts including on support for peace, security and development in Afghanistan and the region. I thank Ms. Mogherini, on behalf of the EU, for opening up a new chapter in the Afghanistan-EU relationship.” The Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development is the...
Russia Bars U.S. From Afghanistan Peace Conference, Supports Taliban Terrorists
Russia barred the U.S. from the Afghanistan peace conference held in Moscow on Wednesday, much to the consternation of Afghanistan. The peace conference was surrounded with public recriminations. Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran are on one side, and Afghanistan and India are on the other. Pakistan, Iran, and Russia have supported the Taliban, which is an insurgent organization that frequently uses terrorist tactics against civilian targets. China had direct talks with the Taliban last year, and its military vehicles have recently been spotted in Afghanistan. Russia says support of the Taliban will counter the Islamic State, which is the more dangerous foe. But such support will really just weaken the current elected government of Afghanistan, and its U.S. supporters, and give Russia a new client in the region. The U.S. should reconsider whether Russia can be trusted as a responsible ally against terrorism. Russia disparages the elected government of Afghanistan as unwilling to fight Islamic State. At the conference last year, Russia only invited Pakistan and China. For Russia not to invite NATO members who have been most involved in trying to bring peace, development, democracy, and the rule of law to Afghanistan is insulting, but perhaps not surprising since Russia, and its ally China, oppose U.S. influence in the region. As the U.S. and its allies retreat from Afghanistan, Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan are trying to fill the resulting power vacuum by allying through the Taliban against not only Islamic State, but against the current democratically-elected government of Afghanistan. This will result in more Taliban influence in Kabul, and could hasten or even lead to the overthrow of the elected government. That is unfortunate for the citizens of Afghanistan, who will lose their relatively secular government in exchange for more violence, the old fundamentalist Islamic government of the Taliban, or both. It will also be a very public failure of the U.S. and...
Ready To Work with Pakistan Military, Civilian Govt: Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister
Afghanistan Deputy Foreign Minister Hekmat Khalil Karzai says Afghanistan wants to engage the government of Pakistan in order to reduce tension. “But the restraint cannot be exercised by only one side,” he told members of the Pakistani and Afghan members during a track-II dialogue process “Beyond Boundaries” at his office, amid tensions after a recent wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan which killed nearly 100 people. Pakistani banned groups, which Pakistani security officials say operate from Afghan side of the border, claimed responsibility. “There are options available for Afghanistan as Pakistan violated many international conventions by resorting to unilateral actions involving shelling inside Afghanistan. We consider closure of the border a violation of the rights of the landlord country,” he said. He further said they do not want to “indulge in the blame game” with Pakistan. “We are ready to work with military and civilian government at all levels. The intentions should be sincere and meaningful. We should not watch lips. We should watch actions. The relationship is at the lowest. No third country can bail us out. Eventually it is Afghanistan and Pakistan that would get hurt,” he observed. “Tensions and instability will eventually hurt both the countries. We want meaningful dialogue and time is not on our side. The sooner we start sincere and meaningful dialogue the better it would be for our common good.” He claimed that his government has taken a deliberate decision to show restraint in the wake of worsening relations between the neighbouring countries. In reply to a question, the Afghan deputy FM said Afghanistan would not be attending the forthcoming ECO summit in Pakistan next month “at leadership level.” However, he did not disclose the level of participation from Afghanistan, which is under process. The theme of the Summit is “Connectivity with Prosperity” and the Foreign Office in Islamabad said last week the summit will discuss options to enhance...
Why Trump Must Define the Mission in Afghanistan
In the next week, the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state, the director of national intelligence, and the acting national-security advisor will hand President Donald Trump a new military plan to defeat the Islamic State. For the sake of America’s military and political mission in Afghanistan, President Trump should direct the Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community to conduct a similar assessment against the Taliban movement. At the top of the list should be a fundamental question. Is the conventional concept of “winning” in Afghanistan—pulverizing the Taliban into the ground; defeating al-Qaeda into oblivion; establishing an Afghan army that is corruption-free, independent, and strong enough to control the entire country; and constructing an Afghan government that respects democratic principles—possible to meet? U.S. troop numbers in the country may be at their lowest point since 2002, but the American aircraft and special-operations forces are still all too frequently asked to bail out the Afghan army when they find themselves surrounded. The security situation is going in the wrong direction at an increasingly alarming rate. According to the latest report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and data from the UN mission, territory under Afghan government control continues to contract. U.S. Forces-Afghanistan reports that 57.2 percent of the country’s districts as of November 2016 are solidly under the thumb of the Afghan security forces—a 15 percent decrease from the same period the year prior. More than 83 percent of Uruzgan province and 57 percent of Helmand province are under insurgent control or influence. Armed clashes between insurgent groups and the Afghan security forces have reached their highest intensity since the UN began tracking the data. Meanwhile, the Afghan security forces are taking so many casualties that it’s becoming increasingly...
Anger Management
Operation Ghazi sees a vengeful regrouping of anti-state actors to undo Zarb-e-Azb The Lahore attack reminds us of some stark realities facing us all. First, the dithering and politicking by the indifferent ruling elite continues to compromise the state of preparedness of the security apparatus. Second, a pliant bureaucracy and police, largely under the thumb of the prime minister and chief ministers, play second fiddle to the ruling elite. Third, a few intellectuals still sympathetically pander to extremist ideologies, creating the space and justification for violence against the people and interests of Pakistan. Four, these circumstances are invariably exacerbated by the interference of a possible foreign hand via proxies such as the Jamaat-ul-Ahrar and other Tehreek-e-Taliban factions, all of whom, on the face of it, predicate and justify their violence against “infidel institutions” in the craven pursuit of the Shariah. In reality, they are all instruments of destabilization for Pakistan. The claims for Shariah are at best a fiction since none of these non-state entities either possess the wherewithal or even a semblance of public support to capture the state of Pakistan to impose it. And so, whoever interprets this string of high-profile attacks as revenge exacted by angry and disenchanted Muslim brothers does so at the risk of self-delusion. The ground reality is that Pakistan is facing the atrocious consequences of a triangular proxy war. Entities such as Jamaatul Ahrar, the TTP or Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are a few of the ground manifestations of this war that has been a popular recommendation by people such as Ajit Doval, the Indian National Security Advisor, or Amrullah Saleh and Rahmatullah Nabeel, the former heads of the Afghan National Directorate of Security. Such challenges require a much more coherent civilian-military apparatus; the army can undertake surgical, kinetic operations to clear and hold territories but cleansing, consolidating and undertaking...
Afghan Weekly (Feb 10 - Feb 16, 2017)
Moscow hosted a six-party conference on Wednesday with high-level representatives from China, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and naturally Russia itself, to address the issue of deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan and work towards finding a peaceful and political solution to the Afghan dilemma.[1] According to the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), the consultative meeting on Afghanistan in Moscow is a constructive step in encouraging regional cooperation and solidarity in the war against terrorism.[2] Political commentators believe that Russia’s interests in Afghanistan’s political situation and the thaw in ties between Russians and the Taliban would further complicate the war in Afghanistan.[3] With both Russia and China leading the initiative, Pakistan might claim a diplomatic victory here, but it is yet to be seen how India, with the strengthening of ties with the US and powerful lobbyist in the current US administration, indulges in the dialogue. Meanwhile, Islamabad and Kabul are once again at daggers drawn to each other. The development comes two days after a deadly bombing rocked the Punjab provincial capital Lahore, killing at least 14 people and wounding dozens more. According to a press release from the Foreign Office, Pakistan has summoned the Afghan deputy head of mission to convey its concerns over continuing attacks by terrorist outfit Jamaat-ul-Ahrar from its sanctuaries inside Afghanistan.[4] Two days later another bomb ripped through a shrine in interior Sindh leaving over 70 people dead. Hours after the incident the Pak-Afghan border was closed with immediate effect due to security reasons, as revealed by DG ISPR Major General Asif Ghafoor in a tweet.[5] The border will remain closed until further orders, according to Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR).[6] The Afghan embassy officials have also been summoned at General Headquarters in this regard, read a statement from the military-wing Inter Services Public...
Hekmatyar’s Homecoming
Is this a time for jubilation, apprehension or assorted thoughts? It depends on how you look at it. Whatever the case, it is surely going to be a topsy-turvy ride. There’s finally something to cheer for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. He, at last, seems to have the last laugh. He’s been envisioning negotiations with the insurgent outfits in Afghanistan for long and the time may finally have come. Last week, the UN Security Council lifted the sanctions against Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of Hizb-e-Islami Afghanistan (HIA). The political astuteness and level of perspicacity that the Afghan government is going to display will determine the future outcome. Will these latest turn of events be the precursor for change in Afghanistan? Can this move serve as a curtain-raiser for a peaceful bilateral relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Will the militants be allowed to come into the national foray? And will it be prudent enough to do so, anyway? Any attempt to dig deep and discover what transpired in the past might not help in providing answers to these questions. It is time to delve into what lies in the future. First, there might be no backing off this time around. Hekmatyar’s decision to reach an agreement with Kabul may serve as a vestibule of peace deals in the region. The HIA chief and the former prime minister has always been an influential figure and, of late, has burnished his credentials as a peacemaker. The discord between Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah continues to hog the limelight. At this stage, it remains to be seen how both the stalwarts of the Afghan government will work this one out. However, there is also a downside to the recent brouhaha: if the government fails to implement the agreement in its entirety, the backlash could be as severe as it can get. As a result, the divisions within the central government in Afghanistan on the peace deal can alter the security apparatus drastically. The ramifications could therefore be devastating. Second,...
Expanded Afghan Talks – a Positive Move
The Russian government will shortly be hosting six-nation talks on Afghanistan. The participants will include Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and India. According to Russian Foreign Minister, high-level participation from these countries has already been confirmed. Given the existing rivalries and divergent policies of these six nations regarding instability in Afghanistan, the development has assumed exceptional significance. Would the outcome go beyond reiterating pious hopes, tired clichés and nice diplomatic rhetoric? There are hardly any tangible reasons to anticipate regional consensus essential to sustain Afghan national reconciliation process. China, Russia and Pakistan have been claiming to promote Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process. But their conflicting practices and methods have so far led to nullifying efforts to secure peace and stability in Afghanistan. Obviously, Russia and China are the primary movers for the expanded talks. Moscow is concerned about rise of ISIS and apprehends an imminent threat from around 2000 ISIS Russian veterans fleeing from Syria. It has increased its contact with Taliban as the latter could neutralize ISIS. At the same time, it supports the Afghan government’s reconciliation process but wants the Afghan government to accept Taliban as political force. China is a major regional power, which has high stakes in the success of the proposed Moscow talks. Chinese are concerned about ISIS and its growing influence on Chinese Uighurs fighting against NATO forces and Afghan government. They fear that trained and motivated Uighurs may return to Xinjiang, fuelling new traction in the existing instability there. If Pakistan is the invisible pusher for the meeting, its interest is understandable. After Afghanistan, Pakistan is the direct major affecttee of the Afghan imbroglio. Its priority is to regain the lost trust and confidence of both Taliban and the Afghan government. Technically the...
‘No End in Sight’ – Does Trump Silence on Afghanistan Indicate Extension of War?
The United Nations mission in Afghanistan said that last week US airstrikes killed at least 18 civilians, most of them women children, days after the US commander there called for thousands of additional troops. The US airstrikes came amid a widening battle between US-backed Afghan soldiers and the Taliban in Helmand province, the area that suffered the most civilian casualties in the country in 2016. In an interview with Radio Sputnik Ben Norton, a journalist for AlterNet's GrayZone Project, pointed out that the tragic events are by no means a single example of disregard for Afghan civilian lives by the US. Norton recalled October 2015 when US-led NATO forces bombed a hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders, killing dozens of medical staff members and patients. The analyst stressed that since 2012, the US mission in Afghanistan has documented a gradual increase in civilian casualties. "Of course, since 2001 when the war began there have been frequent civilian casualties. The point is, in the past four or five years they have actually increased each year" He said during the broadcast. "In 2016, 6000 civilians were injured and more than 2500 were killed." The war in Afghanistan surpassed the Vietnam war and became the longest official war in the US history. According to Norton, the worst part about it is that it has not actually liberated the country from the Taliban but rather let the movement's influence grow. "The irony is, the Taliban were incredibly unpopular in 2001 when the US war began, and since then, in some places their popularity has actually increased, and this is what war does." He said. Despite multiple pledges by the former US president Barack Obama that he would end the war by 2014, he ended up expanding it, with thousands being killed on annual basis, and "there does not appear to be end in sight", according to Norton. "Last October we entered the 16th year and there's almost no discussion of it." Norton said. "It was not mentioned at all...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.